This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator David M. Kaplan. A grievance was filed disputing 3 hours of
AWOL charged to the grievants. The Arbitrator rescinded the AWOL charges but
held that letters of admonishment should be issued to the grievants.

The Union filed exceptions to the award under section
7122(a) of the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and
part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an
opposition to the Union's exceptions.

For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the
portion of the Arbitrator's award directing the Agency to issue letters of
admonishment to the grievants is deficient under section 7122(a)(2) of the
Statute because the Arbitrator exceeded his authority. Accordingly, we will
modify the award.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The Arbitrator found that both grievants were charged
with 3 hours of AWOL because of their failure to return to work at the
conclusion of a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hearing. Although the
hearing ended at approximately 11 a.m., the Union contended that Grievant
Vaughn (the appellant before the MSPB) and Grievant Charles (the Chief Steward,
who was serving as the appellant's MSPB technical advisor) discussed "strategy"
with the Union's National Representative until about 3 p.m. Award at
3.

A grievance was filed with respect to the AWOL charges.
The Agency subsequently offered to convert the 3 hours of AWOL into 3 hours of
annual leave; however, the Union declined the offer. The matter was submitted
to arbitration on the following issue: "Were the grievants properly charged
with three (3) hours of AWOL for failing to return to [work] upon [the]
conclusion of [the] MSPB hearing . . . ? If not, what shall the remedy be?"
Id. at 2.

Before the Arbitrator, the Union contended that the
Agency should not be able to interfere with the "representational" activities
which occurred upon the conclusion of the MSPB hearing. Id. at 6. The
Union also maintained that Grievant Vaughn called his supervisor following the
hearing and that Grievant Charles was not instructed to call her supervisor at
such time.

The Agency contended before the Arbitrator that "[t]he 8
hours of administrative leave [were] specifically authorized for an MSPB
hearing, and not for 'representational activities' following the conclusion of
such hearing[.]" Id. at 9. The Agency further maintained that "once that
hearing ended, the grievants were directed by their supervis[ors] to return to
work, or [to] obtain approval for an extension of time beyond the [conclusion]
of [the] . . . hearing at 11:00 a.m." Id.

Based upon his interpretation and application of the
local supplemental collective bargaining agreement, the Arbitrator found "that
the grant of 'official time' for these grievants . . . [was] not a grant of
'discretionary time' to be used 'as needed.'" Id. at 17. Rather, the
Arbitrator concluded that administrative leave was approved for the express
purpose of "allow[ing] the grievants to appear at a hearing before the MSPB[]"
and "that the grievants should have called their respective supervisors . . .
[at] the conclusion of the . . . hearing." Id. at 17-18.

As his award, the Arbitrator stated that the AWOL charges
should be rescinded and, "instead, that a WARNING letter be issued to each
grievant on the subject of complying with supervisory instructions, and [on]
communicat[ing] with supervis[ors] upon the completion of the purpose for which
. . . official/administrative leave was granted." Id. at 19. The
Arbitrator also stated that the grievants should be "restored to full pay and
other legal and conctractual [sic] benefits." Id. at 20.

The parties subsequently asked the Arbitrator to clarify
his award. In response to that request, the Arbitrator stated "since a
'warning' is the same as an 'admonishment' under the standard dictionary
definition, then a 'warning letter' is a 'disciplinary action' within the
meaning of Article 12, Section 2A. of the [parties'] agreement." Award
Clarification at 1. Article 12, Section 2A. of the parties' master collective
bargaining agreement defines "a disciplinary action . . . as admonishment,
reprimand, or suspension of 14 calendar days or less." Id.

III. The Union's Exceptions

The Union excepts only to the portion of the award
directing the Agency to issue letters of admonishment to the grievants. The
Union asserts that, by doing so, the Arbitrator exceeded his authority because
he "required the [A]gency to take specific disciplinary action." Exceptions at
2. The Union maintains that after the AWOL charges were rescinded the grievants
were "in an approved leave status" and that the collective bargaining agreement
provides that "no approved absence will be a basis for disciplinary action."
Id. In addition, the Union contends that the parties' agreement requires
that counseling be used, rather than "warning letters[,]" to notify employees
when "infractions" have been committed. Id.